Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/22/17 at 1:56 pm to Alahunter
You do realize that is my exact point when it comes to the 2 party system.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 2:51 pm to cas4t
Another name for true democracy is mob rule. There's not a single true democracy in the world. You need a balance. Take congress for example. Senators are elected to a 6 year term, whereas representatives are 2 year terms. The Senate is by design supposed to be a slower, more contemplative body. The house is supposed to reflect more of the mood of the day.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 3:07 pm to cas4t
You will get no argument from me that the existing party system and in particular the way nominees are chosen is an utter disaster.
A centrist candidate can't win the presidency because they can't get nominated. In order to win a primary, you've got to attract the dedicated party hardcores that vote in the primaries.
Binding primaries have only existed since the late 1960s/early 1970s and I don't think it is accidental at all that the nominees for both parties have become more and more polarizing as we get further away from that change.
A centrist candidate can't win the presidency because they can't get nominated. In order to win a primary, you've got to attract the dedicated party hardcores that vote in the primaries.
Binding primaries have only existed since the late 1960s/early 1970s and I don't think it is accidental at all that the nominees for both parties have become more and more polarizing as we get further away from that change.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 3:37 pm to JustGetItRight
Understood, and I'm in no way saying we should remove the representative government, to be clear. Somehow this shifted to a true democracy when really all I've stated is that the electoral college is inherently flawed and should be done away with. Simply removing the electoral college wouldn't create mob rule. There are obviously still rules of government that are put in place as you mentioned.
I also see your point as to the electoral college as it relates to rural area voters. But I'd argue that it would force republicans to campaign in areas where minorities are abundant. I don't think that's bad thing. And undoubtedly would push for a third party candidate which is basically Trump already. Name recognition, celebrity, a man of the people, etc. The only difference is he wasn't likable. Another polarizing figure with more positive qualities would have wiped the floor with Hillary and Trump. I understand your cons to removing the EC; I just don't believe they outweigh the pros nor the morality of a popular vote for president. Right now we are allowing rural America to decide our president, not just giving them a voice. And no offense, but I'm not a big fan of that. Just because a candidate isn't campaigning hard in your town doesn't mean you should be ignorant to politics. It's up to you to pay attention.
I also see your point as to the electoral college as it relates to rural area voters. But I'd argue that it would force republicans to campaign in areas where minorities are abundant. I don't think that's bad thing. And undoubtedly would push for a third party candidate which is basically Trump already. Name recognition, celebrity, a man of the people, etc. The only difference is he wasn't likable. Another polarizing figure with more positive qualities would have wiped the floor with Hillary and Trump. I understand your cons to removing the EC; I just don't believe they outweigh the pros nor the morality of a popular vote for president. Right now we are allowing rural America to decide our president, not just giving them a voice. And no offense, but I'm not a big fan of that. Just because a candidate isn't campaigning hard in your town doesn't mean you should be ignorant to politics. It's up to you to pay attention.
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 3:49 pm to cas4t
I agree. The EC has to go.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:01 pm to cas4t
If we didn't have the electoral college then California and New York would decide the vote. Either way we are screwed. I think the votes should be split from each state, like another poster said.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:02 pm to cas4t
quote:
Somehow this shifted to a true democracy when really all I've stated is that the electoral college is inherently flawed and should be done away with.
I think with our winner take all system, the electoral college does a great job. It protects minority interests and prevents the umbrella politics from being to centered on just a few regions. Without the electoral college would the Rust Belt be in the news? People struggling in Appalachia? I doubt it. Without the electoral college, in our winner take all system, the only thing that would matters is homogenizing highly populated areas and getting as large a percentage of that as you can. It wouldn't be an exaggeration that you could literally ignore the middle of the country. And I say this as a Texan. My vote in the Electoral College will never be worth as much as someone "educated" at LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, or Mississippi State. Which on it's face sounds ridiculous, right? A high school diploma in the Great State of Texas is more valuable than any degree you could obtain at one of those places, and Texans votes are worth less? But yes. That's the way it should be. In the Federal Branch, IMO, having to placate to as many individuals states as possible is a good thing. Larger populous states have other inherent advantages that balance this out.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:07 pm to JustGetItRight
Plus, something like 25 states or so have it written into state law that the electors are bound to the popular vote. Many of these are states with hella rural areas. I think Alabama is in there actually 
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:08 pm to cas4t
quote:
Right now we are allowing rural America to decide our president, not just giving them a voice.
I mean. If Hillary had visited Wisconsin and Michigan, and had at least ONE economic message for the Rust Belt, then she wins comfortably. I think this is a hyperbolic view of what happens. The rural vote has NEVER been this homogeneous. The Democrats literally abandoned the middle of the country and took the one slice they had of it completely for granted. They have the coasts and with just ONE slice of middle America, something Obama did twice quite comfortably might I add... they win. And I for one am absolutely thrilled that our system was able to show the Democrats that they couldn't get away ostracizing everything that's not in LA or Brooklyn... because I absolutely believed they thought they could. They were in such a bubble and felt the rest of America so irrelevant, they were dumbfounded. Good. I'm glad the Electoral College prevents that mindset from prevailing.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:10 pm to TeLeFaWx
Most of middle America electors are tied to the popular vote as it is. I just googled and it's a total of 30 states. Granted, they went to Trump as expected and the electors would've been loyal to their voters anyways as they are far right leaning in middle America. Do you see the flaw in the system? We have a bit of both.
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:14 pm to cas4t
quote:
Most of middle America electors are tied to the popular vote as it is. I just googled and it's a total of 30 states.
I'm confused by what you mean by this.
quote:
Do you see the flaw in the system? We have a bit of both.
Two Senators per State. House of Reps is by population. Federal is a mix of the two. Federal judges are dominated by big states. I don't see a flaw in this actually. Every branch is a balance of some sort.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:17 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
State Control of Electors There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:
LINK
This is also interesting, though:
quote:
Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state’s law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional.
Basically a democrat has no reason to even visit Montana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, etc. they are never going to win that popular vote and hence never get the electoral college vote. Again, we have a bit of both. It's inherently flawed.
Or you can say frick you to the citizens who elected you and break your own state law, at the whopping price of $1k. I mean come on.
I have a basketball game coming up but can catch myself back up here in a couple hours. Enjoying this thread, fwiw.
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 5:13 pm to TeLeFaWx
In truth the electoral college really wasn't about big state vs little state, but moreso about keeping rich white male property owners elected. They believed this was nevessary to keep poor non-landowner from making the mistake of electing someone not in the good ole boy club. You are taught one thing throughout highschool then you realize your history teacher lied to you when you get to college.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 5:24 pm to karralum
Bingo.
Although I wasn't going to go there.
Although I wasn't going to go there.
quote:
As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 5:46 pm to karralum
quote:
In truth the electoral college really wasn't about big state vs little state, but moreso about keeping rich white male property owners elected. They believed this was nevessary to keep poor non-landowner from making the mistake of electing someone not in the good ole boy club. You are taught one thing throughout highschool then you realize your history teacher lied to you when you get to college.
I mean the Founders never imagined a world with the Internet where people would be capable of informing themselves on tons of issues. So it's whatever.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 6:35 pm to Tidemeister
Today's news reports his approval rating at 38%. Is that the worst in past 50 years or however long that poll rating has existed? I feel positive about it though because at least it's not single digits.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 7:16 pm to Tidemeister
quote:
Today's news reports his approval rating at 38%. Is that the worst in past 50 years or however long that poll rating has existed? I feel positive about it though because at least it's not single digits.
I've never understood why anyone cared about approval rating. I'm assuming they just call these people up at random houses and ask the ladies at home watch Dr Phil what they are thinking. It's useless.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 7:31 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:anybody want to guess where that quote is from?
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 7:49 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:
anybody want to guess where that quote is from?
Trump tweeted it in 2012. Why does that matter?
Page 6 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News